Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 8, 2011 3:30pm-4:00pm PST

3:30 pm
california independent system operator. they made that filing back the federal regulatory commission did adopt that request, did endorse that request, so effective midnight, february 28, the plant shut down. >> yay. [applause] >> so, hopefully, the next time you hear about it, it will be about the improvements. thank you. >> thank you, ms. hale. president vietor: comment?
3:31 pm
>> you guys have so much on the agenda. this is the coolest one. i remember when my organization fought the power plant being put in at bayview hunters point. they said, "there is no way that you can stop that power plant." , "it is a done deal -- >"it is a done deal." we did it. we shot down the paltrow -- potrero plant, and we made sure
3:32 pm
that it would get close quickly, because a lot of people that if you are going to stop us from building a new one, this one will stay open forever. this is not true. we could not have gotten there without ms. hale and director harrington, who helped us to get rid of the old one, so this is a big deal. i will just add a little cautionary note, that whatever jurisdiction the puc has, and i am not sure how much you have, but, please, exercise whatever jurisdiction you have got to make sure pg -- pg&e gets it done quickly so we can have that
3:33 pm
part of the city back, where they used to be a power plant, so, thanks. president vietor: director beach: -- president vietor: thank you. and they also want to thank the staff we do we also want to thank the staff -- we also want to thank the staff at puc. there is the climate change, so that is exciting to be able to see this extent in the right direction. thank you. >> that concludes our port, but it is a great lady -- leading to our next item. -- a great lead-in. secretary housh: the resource plan.
3:34 pm
>> this is our third time talking about this item. we came to you at the beginning of our report development with the findings of the rocky mountain institute. we came back to you after input from a select group of folks, with specific recommendations. now, we are coming back to you again with the final work product that has the benefit of much public input, so let me take a moment, if i may. i know the time is long in our meeting already. to go over the outline of the report and where we are in our efforts to bring it to you. this report builds on the 2002 report the commission endorsed. that was actually were the policy was laid out, with the primary focus being the closure of the two power plants, that we just talked about.
3:35 pm
the board guidance is very strong in this report. we have been urged to update the plan by the board, with a focus on addressing the goal of san francisco having a greenhouse gas free, a fossil fuel for korea electric supply by 2013. that is -- a fossil fuel free electricity supplied by 2013. that is the goal. we have provided the report that the rocky mountain institute prepared for us. we have benefited from convening a green tech committee, together with the task force, to shape and better develop the recommendations coming out of the rocky mountain institute report, and we have had many participation opportunities along the way. the plan really recognizes that
3:36 pm
we have limited control here in san francisco over the electric decision making, over the electric supply. we provide, the city and county of san francisco self provides, and that makes up about 15% of the electricity. what is left over is provided by pg&e and other direct-access providers. pg&e has control over the distribution system, and together with translate table, they are the sole providers of transmission services to san francisco -- and together with transbay. with treasure island, as the caretaker facility, we are responsible for distribution and transmission there. they really pre-empt what we can do about controlling the decision making that pg&e has for providing electric service
3:37 pm
here in san francisco. we have a very strong role. having said that, achieving some of our roles for electric provision through our cca program, but clean power -- program, a clean power -- program, clean power sf. these are from electric provision. those broad strategies are to empower san francisco residences and businesses to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, increased the amount of zero greenhouse gas electricity -- increase the amount, and insure that we continue as an agency to
3:38 pm
offer -- and ensure that we continue as an agency to help our customers. it includes a timeline. it includes funding opportunities for achieving each of these three separate strategies. let me give you a snapshot on each of those strategies. president vietor: this relates to adjust our 17%? >> no. thank you for that question -- just to our 17%? >> no. thank you for that question. they are looking for a greenhouse gas freeze san francisco, -- gas free san francisco. part of our challenge is to achieve that broader goal, even though we do not have hit direction over the decision making that goes into the p.g. any service, -- pg&e service.
3:39 pm
that is why, president vietor, we work on how to empower the customers, behind the meter, what actions they can take with in their control as businesses and residences. you will see on this slide the strategies to achieve behind the meter improvements. not listed on this slide but ever-present is the fact that the cca program will provide the vehicle to get to those residences and the decision making on electric service provision for them. then, when we step away from behind the meter, we also want to look at our second strategy,
3:40 pm
reducing the amount of what is applied -- supplied to customers from the wholesale market. for the power that we provide, of course, it is greenhouse free, and it is from the hetch- hetchy system, but what about everyone else? here are strategies that help us to get to that wholesale market change that needs to happen to become greenhouse gases -- gas free. and these others fall under the heading to make sure that san francisco continues its reliable service, and you can see those listed there. we are building on some policies the commission recently adopted with respect to environmental justice and community benefits, as well. as i mentioned, this plan was through an extensive public process, where we had meetings with our clean energy storages, we had several hearings before
3:41 pm
the board, -- clean energy stewards, we have had hearings before the board, and we have had subcommittee meetings. lafco. we have come to you today, and we are looking for you to endorse this plan being delivered to the board of supervisors for their endorsement of the overall goals. we are also looking for -- commissioner torres: when is that going to be presented? >> it will not be presented unless you release us to do so. i am here to ask you to do that. commissioner torres: is authorization is provided, when do you plan to do that -- if authorization is provided? >> within the month. we are looking to develop the
3:42 pm
recommendations more fully and bring them back to you. we need to make sure that the recommendations we developed through this plan are addressed in ceqa is necessary. this is a framework. we will come back to you with specific projects and programs for your endorsement, so you will have further opportunity to get into the broad areas i have described today. for members of the public to have yet to take a look at the plant or who want to access it in its final version, let me just put a slide up of where it is located on our website, and with that, i am happy to take questions. president vietor: commissioners?
3:43 pm
commissioner moran? vice president moran: we have had this before us before, and i think this is the first time we have been asked for action. >> this is correct. vice president moran: there is the frustration of dealing with 100% of the problem, controlling 17% of the solution, and it can lead us into some odd places, and we have had some discussion on this, but it kind of forces us to deal with behind the meter solutions. those tend to be small and fairly expensive, and some of the opportunity that you get through either treasure island or hunters point or cca i think present economies of scale and
3:44 pm
direct control of the decision making that can serve us well. one of the frustrations i have with this strategy is it pretty much deals with the world as it is, without looking more aggressively to where we can be going. those functions. so that is a frustration. one thing that was kind of tantalizing was chapter 6. it deals with a lot of different funding sources that may be available. it deals with some of the constraints that we have on that. it does not quite come to what i would consider closure. it does not develop a financial plan or a programming of funds. i think it would be very helpful in informing not only ourselves but also the board of
3:45 pm
supervisors as to what some of the choices are. specifically, what catches mind eye first is that one of the recommendations is that we have power rights for the city, and this commission has talked a lot about that, and we have also just approved a 10-year capital and financing plan for hetch hetchy, which says that we cannot fund our current needs without going into debt. we are dealing with the revenue issue some note -- or dealing with that revenue issue somehow. i think it would be good to deal with that, the programming of available funds issue explicitly. so we start to get some idea. here is a portfolio of things we think we can look forward to do, that if we are successful in
3:46 pm
getting cca customers that give us the option of displacing power that is currently used by the municipalities and charging the wholesale rate, that creates another source of income. the municipal rates that we have, that creates an additional revenue for some of these programs, and i think that would be a very helpful decision, i think, to add to this package. president vietor: i do think, if i may, comment on your thoughts. i think there are a number of recommendations in the report -- >> i do think, if i may, -- if i may comment on your thoughts, i think there are a number of recommendations in the report that have a strong benefit to us. some of the steps, for example, under the heading of behind the meter, you know, customer
3:47 pm
decision making, could be modifications to building code that would require residences and businesses to take certain steps, like the retrofit on re- sale for water. maybe this is -- there is a re- sale for electricity. energy efficient programs that are already available to them through the state. payer program that pg&e administers -- the state rate payer program that pg&e administers. we could do a relatively low- cost source of public-policy change that would give us a good bang for the effort for
3:48 pm
achieving those goals. to the extent we would come to you and make a recommendation for providing specific incentives or partnering on the combined heat and power program, something like that, and we would be happy to delineate within our timeline a next steps section that appears early in the report a task for pulling together that for the financial piece, as you are suggesting. i would offer that as a potential step to assist in the decision making that occurs after the report is adopted. vice president moran: let me ask a question. what is the expectation or the driving force? one of the concerns that i have is not putting not something that shows a lot of promise and
3:49 pm
hope without any money behind it. we will have to, at some point, deal with that issue. it would be helpful if we have the option. >> i do not think there is any easy to endorsing the plan today -- and the immediacy -- any immediacy to endorsing the plan today. i think it was you, commissioner, when you worked for puc, it was a question then. i would hate for the report to have to wait for solutions to problems that have been decades- long problems. maybe some balance between the two. there are some challenges that the city has had before it, with respect to setting rates that
3:50 pm
compensate for the cost of power provided that has been with us for quite a long time. not a problem that we would have in order to release this report, i would hope. president vietor: it sounds like something you want is a plan for implementation? i think we could probably move forward, understanding that there is a lot of moving parts, the cca, covering costs of service, and all the things we have flagged. perhaps you could come back to us with a sense of when, if it moves forward from this commission and goes to the board and gets adopted, then, perhaps, you could come back in one of the subsequent meetings and let us know what it would take to take eight -- to have a
3:51 pm
budget. vice president moran: a question i have on that, if the report is a free more, -- is a framework, there is at least one recommendation there -- there may be more than that. funding for a period of time. i think until we have a financial plan incorporated as part of this, it would be inappropriate to have those kinds of recommendations. president vietor: mm-hmm. i think that is a point well taken. we do not want an unfunded mandate, and if we are going to commit ourselves to this, we need to know what the revenue stream is. vice president moran: i can find it for you. commissioner torres: i thought we had tried not to make that? vice president moran: it is in
3:52 pm
the report. >> just from recollection, i think the only area where we talk about specific dollar amounts was with the funds we are receiving as a result of t transby cable. is that it? vice president moran: that is not it. i will provide you with that citation. president vietor: is there something else before we move this forward? is there any problem with voting this to the next meeting i know that the gentleman is eager to keep this widget voting this to the next meeting? i know that the gentleman is eager to get this going. -- is there any problem with voting this to the next meeting? i know that the gentleman is
3:53 pm
eager to get this going. vice president moran: an outline without dollar commitments in it, i think it would be fine. if we could pass that today, with the expectation that that would be corrected, that is fine. if you want to take time to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, that is fine. president vietor: we understand that there is not a dollar amount attached to it, and with the understanding that we want to know how to fund it. commissioner torres: my only question is the expectation of the board of supervisors. the last lafco i was at, they were frustrated with how slow this process was, and i could not agree with them more. with respect to this agency moving quickly.
3:54 pm
>> i think the moving quickly sentiment or lack thereof that you heard at the last meeting was with respect to reporting on this but also with respect to the overall implementation of community choice aggregation, and we are in negotiations at this time on community choice aggravation and are making forward progress there. with respect to this report, our expectation in bringing it to the board is to have indorsed and give us the broad vision, endorse the broad vision, with the umbrella under which we will implement the recommendations and bring recommendations for with for endorsement, specific adoption and implementation. commissioner torres: commissioner. -- commissioner moran's comments? getting that before it is set to the board? >> we will bring each program
3:55 pm
element -- before it is sent to the board? >> we will bring each program element. it will be at the time the recommendation implementation is brought to the commission. if you would like us to also capture that in a broader brush way in a plan, and implementation budget is i think the terminology, .-- an implementation budget is i think the terminology. president vietor: i would be comfortable moving forward with a plan with directives through the general manager to come back to this commission. the board might make some adjustments to this. they might make some comments. they might say, "this piece we do not like," or "we would like to make adjustments to this
3:56 pm
piece." to move the plan forward. commissioner torres: more of a perception than a reality that this commission is moving forward. the response of the board of supervisors, they are governing along with the mayor of the city. having said that, on recommendation no. 10, page 81, the regulatory participation. >> yes, commissioner? commissioner torres: have we had conversations with the california public utilities commission about this arrangement? >> we are in continuous participation at the california public utilities commission. when you are saying recommendation 10, and you are pointing towards page 81 -- commissioner torres: correct. >> i am not seeing the specific
3:57 pm
recommendation you're referring to. commissioner torres: it says to encourage policy. >> thank you. i see it at the top of the page now. yes, we confer with them continuously. commissioner torres: why do we need to refer to do that? >> to continue the level of participation. commissioner torres: and this goes back to my main question, are they participating with us? >> yes. commissioner torres: in a positive manner? >> yes. we participate in their formal process as well as dialogue with emperor -- with them. commissioner torres: is the city attorney present? >> yes. commissioner torres: is that you put your colleagues? >> it is the colleagues. -- is that your colleagues? >> it is the colleagues.
3:58 pm
commissioner torres: ok, i just wanted to know the players. thank you. president vietor: so are there further comments or questions on the electricity plant? -- plan? >> i can make one point. commissioner moran points out funding for the city going forward at millions for the next 10 years, and recommendation two has funng for 2017, 2018, and i think this is not a specific dollar amount. >> that sounds fine, and i would be happy to make that change. president vietor: commissioners, before we go to public comment, anyone else on this? commissioner torres: do we have
3:59 pm
a motion? president vietor: yes, we can take a motion. the motion is to move forward, is to endorse goals, objectives, in general strategies in the updated resource plan -- and general strategies in the updated resource plan. commissioner torres: the second was going to direct director harrington to do something. >> you have an agenda item and a resolution under item eight in your packet, so we are asking you to move item eight, as staff has recommended. >> the first resolves to endorse the goals. -- resolve